retain social capital (trust, relationships, connections) of all factions as we try to achieve consensus on standards above. No faction can feel so excluded that they go off to "start their own".

Actually they might try: I've been surfing around the net for small-to-medium businesses that focus on Bluetooth and I've seen lots of these "Imagine that you can push advertising material, electronic coupons etc. to your customers at the point-of-sale"-rantings, without any other goals then to further brainwash people wanting more things they don't actually need :(

Hello 142.177.X.X

It's been a "Link like hell day"... which is kinda silly since, we're a wiki, we don't need to link every other site linking to each other... we'll you know the phenomenon.

CHECK OUT: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/research/corp_critic.htm but remember to come back. Their database has info on 28.000 companies and their sources are good. They charge <500�/per annum for non-profits for "unlimited" access, with no rights to reproduce the data, but there is this clause in the legal stuff that says that we maybe could get a written agreement to incorporate their abundance of knowledge.

Hello your trollishness. Nice to see you are back because I was indeed in a need for a serious kick in the ass as the saying goes. I know I'm lazy so you needn't do that again mkay? How about helping out in figuring out how to govern the Content Wiki so that it retains a reasonable level of intergrity?

How about undeleting CIV so that some serious people who should be seriously boycotted can be boycotted? That is the only way to attract those here to collaborate who actually care about the issues - they aren't going to help with the abstract stuff unless they care about the specific stuff. Without a few dozen reports of bad behaviour by corporations, we can't see what is in common about them, what the different metrics are we need to capture, how different reporting groups treat them. Thus we can't do anything - we need CASES of ACTUAL COMPANIES that would get a "red light".

I still see a gazillion of reasons why betting (with real money) in any form is not applicable for achieving our goal of finally one day implementating some of the things we've dreamed up.

And that is still just wishing. The fact is, people can buy votes, they can pay others to enter their opinions, and if you try to keep money out of the picture, that's where it will go. That will eventually destroy the credibility. Only by providing a cleaner way to influence or signal with money, one that has *some* accountability and transparency, will we be able to *choose* the balance between monied and non-monied interests in the weight of opinions.

And why, why oh why did you have to troll the Opinion Wiki just now when i have really pressing non-consumerium issues i have to attend to? Talk:Opinion Wiki was good stuff, thanks for it.

Because we have a good chance right now to work out the way we look at troll-type comments and other 'distributed identities'. Over at www.Metaweb.com there is now active discussion of "some body" versus "no body" status, and questions about glossary and how factions might compete to define very basic terms, and allocate credibility to articles there. If the discussion happens over at Consumerium at the same time, well, it will very much more likely result in compatible ways.

Likewise now is the time to work out wikitext standards - there and at meta-wikipedia, so there will be choice of software in future, and better tools to process the base of Wikipedia-compatible GNU FDL texts.

You want to get things really going? Figure out the rules which will be used to govern the Content Wiki and Opinion Wiki. Like who gets to write what and who gets to delete what on what grounds and other issues that will produce an abundance of allegiations of bias and flamebaits and flamewars that will just exhaust everyone involved. --really tired Juxo

Sure, double or nothing.

You're on. Seems we are now officially betting on the future of the idea of betting. Now we just have to decide what is the issue we are in this bet for? In my humble view it is whether it legally, organisationally and practically plausible to implement betting on future issues.

How can we even determine the result of this bet without forking to a version with no bets and a version with bets? Is it really worth a few tens of grams of soft ice cream with chocolate crumbles? Why would we want to do this? Who is the trusted auditor that determines the outcome and on what grounds? IMHO this whole bet is just a waste of time, energy and soft ice cream that could be used more constructively if you just got to grips that betting as an official feature is just not plausible and would cause more problems of integrity and manageability then it would solve.

Please mellow down writing new stubbish articles and let's focus on making the existing ones a little more coherent if you please. Thank you.

It was a one-shot to try to knock off most of the Most Wanted Articles that had definitions I already had clearly in mind. I left a note on your blog page to tell you that it was time to start making articles more coherent and better cross-linked.

And please don't do like this: useless and distractive article provocation instead put it in bold font face. We have so many articles that please don't write any new ones unless really necessary since we need to attract more possible contributors (people) not drive them away. I know focus is a word that has suffered lots of inflation due to you know the reason, but we need to focus. Yes.

ALL those links were ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL and ALL have been restored. If anything there are not ENOUGH of these links - the R&D wiki will eventually have at least 1000 pages, so, when it has only 500, you must expect fully half of them to be open links. If you don't like this, reduce the scope of the project - don't VANDALIZE the project by making "Most Wanted Pages" useless. <--- this is the only way to find what is unexplained. Putting in bold face is the convention ONLY for when you have FULLY EXPLAINED an issue in one page with other issues, and make it a redirect. This MUST NEVER be done for just some casual point you want to emphasize.

I agree no new ones should be written unless necessary. In my best judgement every single one that has been opened is necessary, either because it's unique to Consumerium or because we need ONE PARAGRAPH on such complex questions as Richard Stallman or patent to avoid sending people off to waste time at Wikipedia when they really just wanted to know "why do I care about this in the context of Consumerium?"

And one more thing. Do use the Summary-feature please. It'd be really nice for the busy busy people who don't have all day and night to go through some obscure edits

What was that you were saying about not making assumptions about identity?

...really should be excluded from these debates.

Excluded from debates? Right - censorship's a good thing then is it?

...choose her or us.

What would be the point? As you have shown, neither can be made to leave.

Oh, and why are you writing about me in the third person on my own talk page? May I suggest that if you focused less on naming those you dislike and more on the actual issues at hand, your views would be "censored" considerably less. Angela.

Sorry. That won't create 100 mirrors in 100 languages. Fact is, Wikipedia put itself at the centre of GFDL corpus and has used all kinds of bullying and technical tricks to stay there. So it deserves what it gets.

persuade all the good editors that your fork is better by using these arguments that you spread around here daily

But under GFDL you have the right to try, so try or stop complaining that the wrong people are running the most widely known "GFDL corpus access provider" --Juxo 16:16, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)

What are those in practice? Requiring a link back to Wikipedia for those mirroring/duplicating/forking their content (ie. content donated to the GFDL coprus using their resources. I see that requirement to be fully in compliance with the spirit of GFDL since determining who are the five primary contributors for each article is entirely a subjective matter, thus link-back and letting the user view all contributors is the right way to go for the required attribution clause. You must realize that most of the contributors do not reveal their real names thus their identity only exists in the form of being a registered user of Wikipedia. De jure your argumentation is quite right that Wikimedia violates GFDL but for the sake of sanity why not settle the this is the right way to go in de facto sense even for material in Consumerium. --Juxo 16:16, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)

Start a foundation to support the hardware and bandwidth needs of your fork and make sure it's independent board consists of people who have no experience, involvement or clue of wiki governance issues or even what is a wiki or yet even better get some chimps that have never even seen a computer sow you can be certain that you have "an independent board"

I don't quite follow you. Are you claiming that Wikipedia is tabloid journalism?

Code something yourself for once (preferably the worlds best and most scalable wiki code and give exellent technical support for it) instead of complaining about other people not being clairvoyant and slavishly coding anything and everything you want to be coded

Why bother when code costs only $5/day to Russia or Kazakhstan? These people who you think deserve respect are nowhere near as good as those who spam for code gigs on the net. Coders are disposable.

So use your own cash if you don't have time and stamina to code yourself and hire some of those to implement the features we need. Especially automatic aggregation of information requires custom code. Or stop whining and dissing those who donate their time and skills to enabling us to use this wonderful wiki software. --Juxo 16:16, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)

Ah, so it's about the google count is it? Well then Bomis must have some interest. Maybe it wants to SELL those ad words and doesn't like competition?

No. I meant that people who have heard of Wikipedia might use a search engine to find it and you could get an ad of your fork to show. "Join us instead of those corrupt wikipedians."

Buy Fox news with the leftover cash and convert it into your private propaganda instrument

Violence is a more efficient way to deal with Fox News than any transaction.

Violence is never a good solution how ever straightforward it may be in comparison to more peaceful approaches to dealing with what ever pisses you off. You being apparently an intelligent troll would understand that the PC folk and others who are easily frightened would likely see your above comment as an threat to Fox News or it's staff. IANAL but that imho constitutes an illegal threat so please remove it and appologise. --Juxo 16:16, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)

Libel chill is only called that when the commentary in question is not libel by legal definitions. Since Wikimedia publishes real verifiable libel by definitions in use in every w:legal code in the world, telling them to stop is not libel chill.

Pls. behave better. Your actions are very much distracting me from focusing on the real pragmatic issues that need to be solved for us to advance and propably you are annouying lot's of other users. --Juxo 16:16, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)

From what I recall we always screw up a lot of things when we edit consumerium at the same time with intensity. usually what results is that (at least I don't) we don't really remember what was the "end state" of some issue we so urgently needed to write about

OK, agreed, why not focus on Talk:Fund Consumerium and let things be driven by that, for now? We have been technology driven long enough, time to start telling fair trade people what we are doing and want to do next, and, picking a nice FAQ selection for them to read.

Hey. Do check out http://www.tiddlywiki.com It's a complete wiki in one HTML file with the internal logic, GUI logic and logic for saving the file in JavaScript. It termes itself as "a reusable non-linear personal web notebook". The non-linearity part is just what we need, since the pages that are published to the consumer, must be arranged according to their preferences (ie. to include the information they are interested in, in the order they want it and to filter out information they don't want to see). I've been testing TiddlyWiki for some time now (I use it to make lecture and reading notes) and I think it'd rock if it would have sync facilities. There are a dozens of modifications of it floating around so maybe there is one somewhere that would sync with a public wiki the public parts of the personal wiki. --Juxo 18:54, 27 Aug 2005 (GMT)

You've created 7 articles with the pseudo-namespace of "Develop" or talk-pages about articles in the pseudo-namespace. Pls. stop doing this for a while. Every such article has to be moved out of the way in order to change the project-namespace to "Develop:" instead of "Consudev".

Having the project-namespace be "Develop" does have theoretical consistency, but in practice it just messes up the mental image of the distinction between Develop and other articles. --Juxo 19:47, 27 Aug 2005 (GMT)

Not sure how it "messes up the mental image of the distinction between Develop and other articles", though it might make Consumerium:Copyrights more difficult to understand.

Maybe a namespace more generic than "[[Consumerium:]] and more specific than "Develop:" needs to exist? Something that indicates the whole healthy signal infrastructure? Is there a single verb that describes what the development is doing? There is actually an argument that the develop wiki should be called signal wiki since it is conveying the Consumerium buying signal, whatever that is, and doing nothing else.

slow down or stop for a moment. keeping any track and sense of what you're getting at gets terribly difficult after I fall of the 30-article threshold in the RC and I have to eat and watch the news now

OK. move all the serious content here to Talk:namespace if we must continue this.

But there's probably some major design decisions to make, so don't hurry them.